RugbyMuffin
ASFN IDOL
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2003
- Posts
- 30,485
- Reaction score
- 4,877
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10381790/Is-it-time-to-retire-the-football-helmet?gt1=39002
As a rugby player I have thought about this situation a lot. Playing both football and rugby, I have played with a helmet, and without a helmet.
It definately creates a different "attitude" towards hitting.
The first thing in rugby we teach ex-football players is not to hit with their head. We tell them 1,000 times before they go out on the field, and they still make their first hit like a football player, then end up with a HUGE knot on there forehead. They usually stop hitting with their heads after that.
I was no exception to that rule, BTW, my first rugby game I shilacked some poor guy, and hit him with the crown of my head. OUCH. That was the last time I did that. I learned to tackle a different way, and then learned how to lay a big hit in a different fashion. It works. It keeps some (not all) the voilence of a "football hit".
So, in my opinion, the "pro" arguement that a helmet would force players to keep there head out of the action. I agree with that.
Where I see a problem with not having a helmet is that in rugby 90% of the time when there is contact, both parties are falling forward. Yes, sounds strange, but that is the situation. When I have the ball in rugby, I understand at that point it is me versus the 15 guys on the other team. There is no blocking in rugby. So, when I am know I am going into contact, I know that I am not breaking 15 tackles and running for the score. I need to keep possession of the ball, by going down to the ground in a controlled fashion so that after I hit the dirt my teammates can drive over me and clear the opposition away from the ball. The end result looks something like this, where I am the guy who had the ball, hit the dirt, had my teammates "ruck over", and clear the ball. (Sidenote: LOL, if you look closely you can see the guy that tackled the player in red is rabbit punching him in the gut. Man I love rugby!)
Point being I am falling forward, and my opponent is falling foward with me.
In football, it is all about getting every inch you can. So, when a RB hits a pile, he is trying to get that last inch. Sometimes that results in him being put on his back and his head falling backwards and the back of his head hitting the ground with some force. This happens to QB's after they pass as well.
The act of your head snapping back, and the impact to the back of the head in that situation is VERY VERY VERY dangerous when you do not have a helmet on. Not to mention that fact that grassy turf, and artificial surfaces are very hard and unforgiving.
Thus in my opinion the "con" arguement would be that there is incident contact, and a style of the game that cannot be avoided that will cause head injuries that are not cause by one human hitting the other, but by a player hitting the ground in a dangerous fashion. Also, that fact that "fashion" of hitting the ground is unavoidable in football.
It is a good debate, and one I have talked about a lot.
As a rugby player I have thought about this situation a lot. Playing both football and rugby, I have played with a helmet, and without a helmet.
It definately creates a different "attitude" towards hitting.
The first thing in rugby we teach ex-football players is not to hit with their head. We tell them 1,000 times before they go out on the field, and they still make their first hit like a football player, then end up with a HUGE knot on there forehead. They usually stop hitting with their heads after that.
I was no exception to that rule, BTW, my first rugby game I shilacked some poor guy, and hit him with the crown of my head. OUCH. That was the last time I did that. I learned to tackle a different way, and then learned how to lay a big hit in a different fashion. It works. It keeps some (not all) the voilence of a "football hit".
So, in my opinion, the "pro" arguement that a helmet would force players to keep there head out of the action. I agree with that.
Where I see a problem with not having a helmet is that in rugby 90% of the time when there is contact, both parties are falling forward. Yes, sounds strange, but that is the situation. When I have the ball in rugby, I understand at that point it is me versus the 15 guys on the other team. There is no blocking in rugby. So, when I am know I am going into contact, I know that I am not breaking 15 tackles and running for the score. I need to keep possession of the ball, by going down to the ground in a controlled fashion so that after I hit the dirt my teammates can drive over me and clear the opposition away from the ball. The end result looks something like this, where I am the guy who had the ball, hit the dirt, had my teammates "ruck over", and clear the ball. (Sidenote: LOL, if you look closely you can see the guy that tackled the player in red is rabbit punching him in the gut. Man I love rugby!)
You must be registered for see images
Point being I am falling forward, and my opponent is falling foward with me.
In football, it is all about getting every inch you can. So, when a RB hits a pile, he is trying to get that last inch. Sometimes that results in him being put on his back and his head falling backwards and the back of his head hitting the ground with some force. This happens to QB's after they pass as well.
The act of your head snapping back, and the impact to the back of the head in that situation is VERY VERY VERY dangerous when you do not have a helmet on. Not to mention that fact that grassy turf, and artificial surfaces are very hard and unforgiving.
Thus in my opinion the "con" arguement would be that there is incident contact, and a style of the game that cannot be avoided that will cause head injuries that are not cause by one human hitting the other, but by a player hitting the ground in a dangerous fashion. Also, that fact that "fashion" of hitting the ground is unavoidable in football.
It is a good debate, and one I have talked about a lot.
Last edited:
I don't get it. 
